2017
DOI: 10.4000/echogeo.15131
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Collectifs et développement durable des territoires ruraux en Amérique latine

Abstract: Depuis plusieurs décennies, les campagnes d’Amérique latine connaissent de profondes transformations sous l’effet de politiques qui favorisent un modèle capitaliste de développement rural. Toutefois, on observe dans le même temps une mobilisation accrue des groupes paysans qui revendiquent un changement de paradigme économique et une meilleure reconnaissance de l’agriculture familiale. Dans ce contexte, cet article propose une réflexion sur le rôle des collectifs pour le développement durable des territoires r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While marginalized areas were seen in Riobamba, both spatially and socioeconomically speaking or subordinate to capitalist interests, in Cuenca, on the other hand, and in a context of family-based agriculture affected by previous migration, the resilience of the peri urban rural areas could be seen, having been driven by public institutions instilling new rural practices, which, at the same time, produced a redefinition of the countrycity relationships. It is worth stating that the promotion of farming collectives, understood as a generic notion which refers to a group of individuals who cooperate through common action to defend, organize or value their land (Raimbert y Rebaï, 2017), constituted a key factor to favor new socioeconomic approaches between farmers, on one hand, and between farmers and urban consumers, on the other. On promoting the training of farmer groups, with the idea of providing environmental services and agroecological producer associations, for the provincial urban supply of clean cheaper products, the Cuencan public authorities favor new socioeconomic approaches, which correspond to the fact that players belong to the same networks, share the same references and the same knowledge, and are organized based on common goals (Torre and Beuret, 2012), making the creation of new solidarities between Cuenca and its rural periphery possible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While marginalized areas were seen in Riobamba, both spatially and socioeconomically speaking or subordinate to capitalist interests, in Cuenca, on the other hand, and in a context of family-based agriculture affected by previous migration, the resilience of the peri urban rural areas could be seen, having been driven by public institutions instilling new rural practices, which, at the same time, produced a redefinition of the countrycity relationships. It is worth stating that the promotion of farming collectives, understood as a generic notion which refers to a group of individuals who cooperate through common action to defend, organize or value their land (Raimbert y Rebaï, 2017), constituted a key factor to favor new socioeconomic approaches between farmers, on one hand, and between farmers and urban consumers, on the other. On promoting the training of farmer groups, with the idea of providing environmental services and agroecological producer associations, for the provincial urban supply of clean cheaper products, the Cuencan public authorities favor new socioeconomic approaches, which correspond to the fact that players belong to the same networks, share the same references and the same knowledge, and are organized based on common goals (Torre and Beuret, 2012), making the creation of new solidarities between Cuenca and its rural periphery possible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another line of research focused on the economic motivations behind farmers' engagement in economic, social and solidarity organizations. The establishment of SSE, such as cooperatives, mutual societies, self-help groups, and farm groups, is thus seen as a tool for small-scale farmers to pool their resources and market their products collectively, 3 of 16 which could help to overcome the high transaction costs resulting from their small size (Kruijssen et al, 2009;Raimbert et Rebaï, 2017), increase their bargaining power (Bosc et al,2002), reducing transport, and facilitate certification and labeling. Studies in Africa reveal that farmers' groups can also increase the productivity of their members by providing access to resources (inputs, credit, training, transport, information and technical assistance) that are difficult to obtain individually (Chiputwa,Spielman, and Qaim 2015;Fischer, Qaim, and Goettingen 2012;Abebaw and Haile 2013).…”
Section: Sse Motivating Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 of 16 overcome the high transaction costs resulting from their small size (Kruijssen et al, 2009;Raimbert & Rebaï, 2017 ;Utting, 2015;. In this context, the implementation of an agricultural policy revised with the objectives of the SSE offers an alternative towards a local, collective, responsible and citizen economy, respectful of people and resources, creating economic and social value in the territories.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pour cela, il y aurait sans aucun doute un intérêt majeur à favoriser la reconstruction de relations de solidarité entre agriculteurs telles qu'elles ont existé dans le passé en ayant permis aux sociétés paysannes andines de faire faces aux multiples contraintes liées à leur environnement. Ainsi, d'un point de vue plus concret, l'émergence de collectifs paysans soutenus par les pouvoirs publics permettrait d'améliorer la qualité de l'intégration marchande des agriculteurs familiaux, de contribuer à l'adoption de pratiques innovantes pour l'amélioration des systèmes de production et la protection de l'environnement et, enfin, de faciliter la participation des individus aux prises de décision concernant leurs territoires (Tonneau et al, 2009 ;Raimbert et Rebaï, 2017 11. Sur ce point, une étude récente conduite auprès de producteurs de lupin dans le Cotopaxi et le Chimborazo a montré que les agriculteurs avaient une connaissance réduite des ravageurs qui affectaient leurs champs et que cela constituait le premier facteur limitant une lutte efficace contre les nuisibles (Mina et al, 2017).…”
Section: Conclusion 26unclassified